alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 457 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that the 

House be in session at least 40 hours each week other than a week 

that is designated as a district work period. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 1, 2015 

Mr. JOLLY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

require that the House be in session at least 40 hours 

each week other than a week that is designated as a 

district work period. 

1 Resolved, That rule XIV is amended by adding at the 

2 end the following new clause: 

3 ‘‘7.(a) Except as provided by paragraph (b), the 

4 House shall be in session at least 40 hours each week 

5 other than a week that is designated as a district work 

6 period. 

7 ‘‘(b) In any week in which a legal holiday occurs, 

8 other than a week that is designated as a district work 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 457 IH 

1 period, the House shall be in session at least 8 hours per 

2 day for the remaining days of such week.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27408]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 14, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 4, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
130 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-95, CP2024-97.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-27408 Filed 12-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 669 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 669

 Recognizing the 150th anniversary of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 11, 2016

    Ms. Gabbard (for herself and Mr. Takai) submitted the following 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the 150th anniversary of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I.

Whereas the beauty of Hawaii is rooted in the people who celebrate, perpetuate, 
        and share its unique culture and history;
Whereas stewards of Hawaii's cultural and historical treasures are members of 
        the Royal Order of Kamehameha I, the first institution of its kind to 
        promote and defend the Kingdom of Hawaii;
Whereas the Royal Order of Kamehameha I was established on April 11, 1865, by 
        His Majesty Kamehameha V, Lot Kapuaiwa Kalanikapuapaikalaninui Aliiolani 
        Kalanimakua;
Whereas the Royal Order of Kamehameha I is comprised of men who preserve and 
        perpetuate Native Hawaiian culture;
Whereas the Royal Order of Kamehameha I strives to create a thriving lahui by 
        supporting and empowering kanaka oiwi physically, mentally, and 
        spiritually;
Whereas the nine chapters of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I continue advocacy 
        for Native Hawaiians, and the chapters representing several of the 
        islands are as follows--

    (1) Moku O Hawaii;

    (2) Moku O Mamalahoa;

    (3) Moku O Kaumualii;

    (4) Moku O Kahekili;

    (5) Moku O Kalanianaole;

    (6) Moku O Kuhio;

    (7) Moku O Kona;

    (8) Moku O Kapuaiwa; and

    (9) Moku O Kohala; and

Whereas April 11, 2015, started the yearlong 150-year commemoration of the Royal 
        Order of Kamehameha I that culminates on April 11, 2016: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives celebrates the legacy 
of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I, and recognizes the importance of 
the organization, its members, and this sesquicentennial event.
                                 <all>
```
From: Crawford, Jeff S [ mailto:Jeff.S.Crawford@maine.gov ]

Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 4:27 PM

To: Arnold, Anne

Subject: Additional Technical Additional Documentation in Support of Maine's OTR Restructuring

and NOx Waiver Requests

Anne:

I have attached additional materials in support of Maine’s section 182(f) NOx waiver and OTR

restructuring requests. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at

(207)287

- 7647.

Jeff Crawford

Policy Development Specialist

Attached files:

Additional comments cover.pdf

WDF and Trajectories of Ozone Events with NOX.pptx
Safeguarding American Agriculture

 Federal Relay Service

 APHIS is an agency of USDA’s Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Voice/TTY/ASCII/Spanish)

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 1-800-877-8339

July 20, 2011 

CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 11-18 

TO: Veterinary Services Management Team 

 Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics 

 Biologics Licensees, Permittees, and Applicants 

 

FROM: Richard E. Hill, Jr. /s/ Richard E. Hill, Jr. 

 Director 

 Center for Veterinary Biologics 

 

SUBJECT: Virus Inactivation and Safety Test for Rabies Virus Bulks, 

 Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations (9 CFR), Part 113.209 

I. PURPOSE 

 

The purpose of this notice is to clarify testing expectations when animals injected with 

test bulk die between the 4th and 21st day post injection. 

II. BACKGROUND 

The 9 CFR, Part 113.209 (d)(2)(i), requires inactivated rabies bulk samples from each 

serial to be injected intracerebrally into 20 mice and into each cerebral hemisphere of 2 

rabbits. The animals are observed daily for 21 days. If no unfavorable reactions occur 

the bulk is satisfactory. 

If any of the animals die between day 4 and 21 of the observation period, the brain 

material is tested by either the fluorescent antibody (FA) or serum neutralization (SN) 

tests and inoculated into 5 more mice and observed for 14 days. 

III. POLICY 

Brain material from any dead animal and each brain of the subsequent 5 mice is assessed 

by the FA or SN test for the presence or absence of live rabies virus. If the presence of 

rabies virus is confirmed in any test, the serial is unsatisfactory for use. 

IV. IMPLEMENTATION/APPLICABILITY 

The policy presented is currently in effect. 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service 

Veterinary Services 

Center for Veterinary 

Biologics 

1920 Dayton Avenue 

P.O. Box 844 

Ames, IA 50010 

(515) 337-6100 

FAX (515) 337-6120
# C_2018445EN.01000402.xml

| 10.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 445/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 445/4

---

Appeal brought on 13 August 2018 by Outsource Professional Services Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 31 May 2018 in Case T-340/16: Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-528/18 P)

(2018/C 445/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Outsource Professional Services Ltd (represented by: A. Kempter, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Flatworld Solutions Pvt. Ltd

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgement of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 May 2018 in Case T-340/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgement of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 May 2018 in Case T-340/16;

| — | confirm the decision of the Fourth board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2016 in case number R 611/2015-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

confirm the decision of the Fourth board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2016 in case number R 611/2015-4;

| — | order Flatworld Solutions Pvt. Ltd to pay the costs including the costs necessarily incurred by the EUTM owner/successor/appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Flatworld Solutions Pvt. Ltd to pay the costs including the costs necessarily incurred by the EUTM owner/successor/appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on the infringement of Union Law by the General Court, namely Article 52(1)b of Council Regulation 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark, last amended by Council Regulation 2015/2424 (2).

The General Court erred in law by finding that the EUTM owner/predecessor was acting in bad faith when it filed an application to register the trade mark No 006035547. The General Court misinterpreted the concept of bad faith. There is nothing dishonest or unethical about using descriptive wording to describe a business. Hence the registration as a trademark was not in bad faith.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 2015, L 341, p. 21).

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 605 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 605

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Office of 
             Technology Assessment should be reestablished.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2016

 Mr. Foster submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Office of 
             Technology Assessment should be reestablished.

Whereas the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was created in 1972 to provide 
        Members of Congress and congressional committees with objective analysis 
        of increasingly complex scientific and technical issues faced by our 
        country;
Whereas for over 20 years and 11 sessions of Congress, the OTA produced 
        trustworthy, nonpartisan technical reports on issues as far ranging as 
        nuclear arms control, electronic health records, and oil and shale 
        technologies;
Whereas the expertise provided by the OTA saved taxpayers billions of dollars by 
        identifying cost-effective areas for future investment and avoiding 
        wasting money on technologies and policies that did not and could not 
        work;
Whereas the OTA contributed to the security and economic growth of our Nation by 
        providing timely and forward looking analysis of technological threats 
        and opportunities;
Whereas it is frequently necessary for Members of Congress to make informed 
        policy decisions about rapidly changing technologies that are often 
        outside their technical areas of expertise;
Whereas in the 20 years since Congress has suspended appropriations for the OTA, 
        the United States has missed significant opportunities for reallocating 
        Federal spending to better align with current and future technological 
        reality; and
Whereas 90 organizations came together to call for the OTA to be funded once 
        again by Congress: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) the legislative process would greatly benefit from once 
        again having an office dedicated to giving nonpartisan, 
        technical advice to Congress;
            (2) the Office of Technology Assessment represents a cost-
        effective improvement to the governance of our country; and
            (3) funding should be restored to the Office of Technology 
        Assessment.
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.10.1



 Exhibit 10.10.1 

AMENDMENT #1 
 CONSULTING
AGREEMENT 
 Between 

ONEX PARTNERS MANAGER LP 

And 
 JELD-WEN HOLDING,
INC. 
 This first Amendment (“Amendment 1”) to the Consulting Agreement dated October 3, 2011 (“Agreement’) is
entered into by the above referenced parties as of the latest signature below. Undefined terms in Amendment 1 shall be deemed to have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 

 

	 	1.	MODIFICATION OF FEE: 

 Section 4 of the Agreement is amended to provide that
the Fee shall hereafter be reduced by the amount of Seven Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($775,000.00) per annum with Fee reductions make quarterly in the amount of One Hundred Ninety Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($193,750.00)
for the remainder of the Term. 
 This Amendment 1 may be signed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall have the force and effect
of an original and may be executed by facsimile or PDF signature. Except as amended hereby, all terms and conditions of the Agreement are unchanged and remain in full effect. 
  


									
	Onex Partners Manager LP	 		 	JELD-WEN Holding, Inc.
					
	By:	 	Onex Partners Manager GP ULC, its General Partner	 		 		 	
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Donald F. West
	 		 	By:	 	  

	(Signature)	 		 	 (Signature)

			
	 Donald F. West
	 		 	  

	(Name)	 		 	 (Name)

			
	 Vice President & Secretary
	 		 	  

	(Title)	 		 	 (Title)

			
	 12-5-14
	 		 	  

	(Date)	 		 	 (Date)



  
 Page 1 of 1
CSB BANCORP, INC.

EXHIBIT 11



STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS





|                                                 | Three Months Ended
March 31,
|------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------
|                                                 | 2003                        
|                                                 |                             
|Basic Earnings Per Share                         |                             
|Net income                                       | $597,832                    
|                                                 |                             
|Weighted average common shares                   | 2,633,233                   
|                                                 |                             
|Basic Earnings Per Share                         | $0.23                       
|                                                 |                             
|Diluted Earnings Per Share                       |                             
|Net income                                       | $597,832                    
|                                                 |                             
|Weighted average common shares                   | 2,633,233                   
|Weighted average effect of assumed stock options | 4,072                       
|Total                                            | 2,637,305                   
|                                                 |                             
|Diluted Earnings Per Share                       | $0.23                       
|                                                 |
#### CITY OF TULSA, Plaintiff in Error, v. James ELIAS, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12490.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 9, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 6, 1957.

*317Darven L. Brown, City Atty., Robert N. Wilde, Asst. City Atty., Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Pat Malloy, Rooney Mclnerney, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

BRETT, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal by the City of Tulsa on a reserved question of law. The defendant was charged by information in the Municipal Court of Tulsa, Oklahoma, with the operation of a commercial business in a restricted residential area within the five-mile perimeter of the corporate limits of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma. To the charge the defendant filed a motion to dismiss said action for the reason that the Municipal Court was without jurisdiction to entertain the prosecution. The charge was based on a city ordinance purportedly enacted by the City of Tulsa under the provisions of 19 O. S.19SS § 863.28, extending the planning and zoning jurisdiction of the City of Tulsa five miles beyond the corporate limits of the city. The trial court sustained the motion on the ground that the territorial jurisdictional limits of the Municipal Court of the City of Tulsa was fixed by 11 O.S.19S1 § 782, limiting the jurisdiction to the corporate limits of said city, and said court was without jurisdiction, and that there was a conflict in the statutes.

Under the provisions of 19 O.S.1955 § 863.1, a prerequisite for the Municipal Court’s exercise of jurisdiction to the five-mile perimeter is that the city must bring itself within the provisions of the city and county zoning statute by adopting, amending, extending, and adding to or carrying out a city plan for such city and surrounding territory as lies within the five-mile boundaries of such city as provided in 19 O.S.1955 § 863.2 and also as provided in 19 O.S.1955 § 863.3, by proper ordinance dissolving and discontinuing its city planning commission.

 No such ordinances appear in this record. They are prerequisite for the consideration of the reserved question. We cannot assume such ordinances have been adopted or take judicial notice thereof. Johnson v. City of Tulsa, 97 Okl.Cr. 85, 258 P.2d 695, wherein it was held that this Court will not take judicial notice of an ordinance involved on an appeal. The reason for such holding in the instant case is obvious for we would have no right to resolve the reserved question until it is established the city had brought itself within the statutes herein involved.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

POWELL and NIX, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 111 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 111

To prohibit a Federal agency from establishing or implementing a policy 
  that discourages or prohibits the selection of a resort or vacation 
 destination as the location for a conference or event, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 2015

  Mr. Heller introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit a Federal agency from establishing or implementing a policy 
  that discourages or prohibits the selection of a resort or vacation 
 destination as the location for a conference or event, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect America's Cities from 
Government Blacklist Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN TRAVEL AND CONFERENCES POLICIES OF 
              AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES.

    An agency of the Government of the United States may not establish 
or implement a policy that discourages or prohibits the selection of a 
location for travel, an event, a meeting, or a conference because the 
location is perceived to be a resort or vacation destination.
                                 <all>
```
#### State v. Kabaluk

16756

1/18/95

Affirmed
CAUSE NO. 

# RECEIVEDIN 

# COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS JUN 052015 _K5 Ui Scott Richard Thornton § In the Texas Court of ~ ' 

### vs. § Criminal Appeals The State of Texas § at Austin, Texas On Appeal from the Fifth Court of Appeals RECEIVE© 

## in CauseNo. 05-14-00916-CR CourtofAppeals MAY 2 92015 

# Appellant'sMotiontoExtendthe ClerkflthDistrict Time for Filing a Petition for Discretionary Review To the Honorable Judges of said Court: Comes now Appellant/ and respectfully requests that the time for filing a Petition for Discretionary Review in the above-styled and numbered cause be extended. In support of this motion Appellant would show: 

### 1. On April 29/ 2015/ Appellant's conviction wasaffirmed byffihepffiijWji 

## Court of Appeals in CauseNo. 05-14-00916-CRstyledScottCRy§7arWQ$e¥i^nAPPEALS v. TheState ofTexas. JUN 102815 

## 2. The present deadline for filing aPetitionfor DiscretiTc$aVycR>iv%.eQ'erk is May 29/ 2015. Appellant respectfully requests an extension of time until July 29/ 2015. 3. No previous extension of time has been granted. 4. Appellant would show the Court that a reasonable explanation exists for the requested extension. Appellant is currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and has limited legal knowledge.

1.Appellant must go to the unit law library to research and draft the issues. 

### Wherefore, premises considered/ Appellant respectfully requests that 

### the time for filing a Petition for DiscretionaryReview be extended to July 29, 2015. Respectfully submitted, 

## J§>££> Scott Thornton, Appellant #1940344 Jester 3 Unit 3 Jester Road Richmond, Texas 77406-8544

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been served on the Dallas County District Attorney's Office/ by electronic EFILE service, or ecf on this the 23rd day of May 2015: Dallas County District Attorney's Office Appellate Division 133 N. Riverfront Blvd./ LB 19 Dallas, Texas 75207 

# XMAI^^K Scott Tttbrnton, Appellant #1940344

2.